STAMFORD, Conn. — The public has a right to peek into the privileged world of
Greenwich through aerial photos and other records, despite concerns about
privacy, crime and terrorism, according to the latest state Supreme Court ruling
against the town.
The high court ruled unanimously yesterday that Greenwich must release its
computer database of aerial photographs and maps known as a geographic
information system. The court said the town failed to show the records were
exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act because of security
concerns.
"Such generalized claims of a possible safety risk do not satisfy the
plaintiff's burden of proving the applicability of an exemption from disclosure
under the act," the high court said.
Attorneys involved in the case said the ruling set a precedent.
"This is the first appellate-level decision on the issue of security and
access to government geographic information systems in the country that we're
aware of," said Mitchell Pearlman, executive director of the Connecticut Freedom
of Information Commission.
Greenwich officials have said that the uncontrolled release of detailed
information on infrastructure, public-safety facilities, schools and
celebrities' homes in electronic form could lead to breaches in security and
privacy. The town has been reluctant to disclose the records to the public since
the Sept. 11 attacks.
"I'm just hoping nothing happens down the road that says we were right," said
state Rep. Claudia "Dolly" Powers, R-Greenwich, who opposed releasing the
information.
Powers noted that billionaire investor Edward Lampert was kidnapped in 2003
in Greenwich and released unharmed. She said she might try to introduce
legislation again that would allow towns to redact some information from
records, such as details about power stations, based on public-safety
concerns.
Greenwich resident and computer consultant Stephen Whitaker had filed an
appeal with the state Freedom Information Commission after the town denied his
request for an electronic copy of the entire database. He had sought the
information in December 2001, three months after the Sept. 11 attacks.
His attorney, Dean Montgomery, welcomed the ruling and said he hoped the town
would quickly make the information available.
John Wetmore, the town's attorney, did not return telephone calls
yesterday.
Former Police Chief Peter Robbins testified that the town on the New York
border was frequently a target for crime because of its affluence. He also
expressed concerns that the data might be used to carry out identity theft or
disturb the privacy of public figures who live in Greenwich, which is home to
such celebrities as Ron Howard, Mel Gibson and Diana Ross, as well as many
business executives.
Government agencies have been increasingly concerned about the data they
disclose in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, experts say. Some federal agencies
have restricted or are considering restricting certain maps, charts and images,
said Jim Plasker, executive director of the American Society for Photogrammetry
and Remote Sensing.
"9-11 definitely turned the tide in terms of the sensitivity for how the data
could be used by folks who might have terrorism on their mind," Plasker
said.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Investigative Reporters
and Editors intervened in the case, arguing that the records were public.
Journalists have used such records to document locations of crimes, racial
segregation in schools and inefficient placement of fire stations, the groups
said.
Other states have defined computerized records as public through laws and
court rulings, according to the reporters' groups.
"In the wake of 9-11, a lot of cities were trying to come up with excuses to
not release information," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "I think we'll find this case to
be very useful when it pops up around the country."
Greenwich had lost an earlier battle before the Connecticut Supreme Court
over access to its pristine beaches by out-of-towners.